My point is more like this chart [0]. C has so much lead time, Rust will probably never be able to catch up, be close? Sure. But C has decades of lead time.
[0] http://www.viva64.com/media/images/content/b/0324_Criticizin...
[0] http://www.viva64.com/media/images/content/b/0324_Criticizin...
As steveklabnik noted that is old data (which you would be normally be able to see from the date-stamp in the bottom-right corner, but that's been hidden).
This web page is updated several times a month, and presents the charts in context --
https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/which-programs...
(You might even think that you can tell which language implementations don't have programs written to use multi-core and which do.)
For example, here's a screenshot I took a few months ago: http://imgur.com/a/Of6XF
or today: http://imgur.com/a/U4Xsi
Here's the link for the actual programs: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/rust.html
Today, we're faster in C than one program, very close in most, and behind where SIMD matters.
> But C has decades of lead time.
As an aside: As someone who has used LLVM to build a compiler, it doesn't quite work that way, yes rust has access to those gains, but it may not be able to effectively use them (due to differing assumptions and strategies).